Learning Lab

Welcome to the workshop on writing a literature review for postgraduate coursework students. We hope you'll find some useful tips and strategies here.Here's the outline of the workshop. As you can see, we'll be working through using sources, structure and style issues, and making sure your voice is heard. There's a mixture of information and activities throughout, and you'll also be encouraged to think about your own literature review. Note, however, that we won't cover searching databases and using EndNote. The RMIT Library runs workshops throughout the year on these topics. When we think about writing a literature review, it's usual to only think about the text work. But identity work is equally important. This makes sure that you drive the literature review, and that you don't end up with a literature review that's drowning in the literature. This workshop begins with the text work, and then moves to the identity work, beginning in the section on style issues, and then on the whole of the section on creating your voice of authority.

This is the second section in the workshop. Selecting the best sources of literature for your review is the basis of a good review. There's always a lot of talk about the literature, but actually, what is it? The literature can be any source of information that has relevance. The most commonly used literature is from refereed academic journal articles, and your lecturers will certainly expect these to be used widely. However, in some disciplines, other sources are valid. We should also think about the word, 'review'. What does that actually mean? Reviewing means many things, such as looking for themes in the literature. We also need to be able to critique and evaluate ideas and research, look for links between research, and be able to summarise research in an area. Although, as we said, you may be able to use sources other than academic journals, what we do use must have some sort of validity. For example, you wouldn't cite information from Wikipedia. So how do you decide whether you should use a piece of literature you've found?

Accuracy: The information needs to be reliable. Check to see if it is from a refereed journal. Authority: Who wrote it? Does he/she have credibility? How can you tell? If there's no author, is there an organisation? Is that credible? Objectivity: Are you being positioned or persuaded? If the article is obviously trying to persuade you, be warned. For example, if you found an internet site about the benefits of aromatherapy in the treatment of diabetes and at the end, or popping up through the article, is an ad for aromatherapy products, that should tell you that this is not an objective article. Currency: How old is old? Generally, more than three to five years is considered old in most disciplines. But really, the more recent, the better. Sometimes it's OK to use older sources if there's a good reason. For example, if no one has researched a topic since 1960. However, you would need to mention this when you cite it. Coverage: Does the article cover a range of things superficially, or does it only go deep into only one issue. Which is best? Somewhere in the middle, perhaps. You want enough issues to be discussed so you can compare some of them. So, if you pick five articles that each go very deeply into one solitary issue it might be difficult for you to be able to compare.

There are three kinds of sources: Primary, which are from the original author(s) represented by red, yellow and blue in the diagram. Secondary, where another person writes about the original author(s) publication. Orange, green and violet are combination colours. Tertiary, these shouldn't be used because often none really knows who wrote them or what their credentials are.

Primary sources: These are original sources, and the most commonly cited sources. Your lit review should mainly use these.

Secondary sources: Although these can be used in your lit review, use them sparingly. The problem with secondary sources is that you are reading an interpretation of the primary source. This may not be a true interpretation, or it may be an interpretation used for the secondary source author's purposes. And this may be different to how you want to use the primary author in your work.

Tertiary sources: These are very useful, but don't cite them unless you have a clear reason for doing so. For instance, you might need a definition of a concept in psychology or engineering which you might find a relevant discipline-based dictionary. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source, but given that anyone can put anything up on Wikipedia don't cite it! However, Wikipedia is great for getting the jist of some difficult concept before you read more detailed information.

All texts need structure, and the lit review is no exception. We need some guiding principles so we can decide what to write about first, what next, what sections should go together, et cetera. So what does a literature review generally include? It includes the main ideas, theories, and concepts related to your topic agreement and disagreement related to your topic. Include limitations or problems with research related to your topic. Your literature review is part of a thesis – It will also include the 'gap' in scholarly knowledge that your research will fill. This is where the lit review generally sits within a thesis, but note that you may be required to structure your thesis a little different to this. Note that it answers the question, "what do we already know?" in relation to your research topic or question. See where the literature review sits within the thesis. Notice, also, that the literature review chapter has been ordered around themes, which form headings and subheadings. We can talk about it as a discrete literature review, but the literature is also reviewed throughout the thesis. For instance, although the entire literature review provides a warrant for your study, you also need to bring in a little of the key literature to justify your rationale for the research in the introduction. You also need to justify your chosen research methodology using the literature, either through citing the benefits of this methodology When you discuss your results, it's also useful to bring back some other key literature discussed in your literature review section in order to compare their findings with yours. And, in a similar way, some of this literature can strengthen the claims you're making for your own research in your thesis conclusion. The literature review assignment has a similar structure to an essay. Like the literature review in a minor thesis, it also develops themes and highlights gaps in the literature.

This fourth section of the workshop on writing a literature review deals with issues of style. We've already discussed choosing the literature and structuring your literature review. This section is about how to actually write it, beginning with developing themes and then looking at how to integrate your sources into your writing. Remember to always try and link the content and the activities to your own literature review. It's important to understand what a literature review does, and this is the same for both the literature review that's part of a thesis, and for the standalone literature review assignment. The literature review should build a story around a topic; it's not good enough to passively report what the literature says. You have to make something of it. Here's an outline example of a section of literature review. What do you think about it? Is it effective? What's wrong with it? Writing one paragraph on Text A, the next on Text B, the next on Text C, etc. is a common mistake we often see. A literature review is not an annotated bibliography. In other words, we don't just talk about what this person said, and the next person said, etc. What we have to do is identify and develop themes in the literature. Themes will become the building blocks of your literature review, so they're important. However, two big problems we often have are: Firstly, identifying the themes, and secondly, keeping all the literature in our heads while we're trying to identify new themes, or deciding how articles fit into known themes.

In this process, we began by selecting the literature and reading through the first article. The themes were then identified, and the author and main points were added to the table. This process was then repeated using other articles. Themes were broken down into sub-themes when necessary, and sometimes these need to be captured in a new table for that theme.

Overview - How to identify themes: Read your first article. Identify the themes. Use a table (themes, authors, text). Record the main points. Repeat!

Developing your own table: Draw or download the table (link below). Read 5-6 articles for my literature review. Identify the themes. Add themes and useful information to my table. Review my table. Look for multiple authors discussion the same theme. Find relationships. Are they similar, conflicting? How can I use this?

Of course, when you write your literature review, you need to use general academic writing skills, such as having a clearly identified topic sentence in each paragraph and making sure paragraphs link to each other. However, another set of skills are equally important: analysis, synthesis, critique, as well as paraphrasing and quoting.

Analysis: Examining the parts of an article or issue. Synthesis: Making connections between ideas in the literature. Critique: Evaluating the worth of the literature. Paraphrasing: Rewording what someone else has written in your own words. Quoting: Repeating what someone has written using the original words.

Sample paragraph - using the five skills. These will be identified in brackets at the beginning and end of each section.

With PhDs seen in virtually all universities around the world and substantial movement of academics between university teaching posts (with the prerequisite of a PhD), a likely assumption is that there is some sort of universal value. Two studies that tested this assumption by attempting to benchmark doctorates, however, produced differing results. [Paragraphing] Brown (2011) ultimately found that it is not possible to benchmark doctorates, citing the difficulties in being accepted into PhD study in some universities (for example, the Ivy League universities in the USA) relative to others. She further argues for the impossibility of comparing, for example, a doctorate in electrochemistry with one in education, alluding to the intransigent belief by some that 'hard' science is more difficult (and, therefore, inherently of more value) than 'soft' disciplines (or vice versa). From a different perspective, Evans (2011) attempted to benchmark the doctorate in order to prevent erosion [end-Paragraphing] and [quoting] argues that "to maintain value, doctorates should consist substantially of research training and practice and be founded on three years of full-time equivalent study" (p. 143). [end-quoting] [critique] However, given the complexity of a PhD, to only consider time and the research component is clearly too broad to be of use in identifying or upholding any idea of the value of a doctorate. Interestingly, despite these failed attempts to understand the significance of the PhD [end-critique], [synthesis] the numbers of candidates worldwide continue to grow (Anderson, 2011; McAndrew, 2013; Maxwell, 2010), [end-synthesis] [analysis] pointing to some form of elusive, tacit value. [end-analysis].

Identifying literature review skills in your writing - to do list:

• Choose two of the following skills: Analyse, synthesise or critique.
• Take 3-4 paragraphs from your literature review or a published article and identify where you’ve used these skills
• Review: Was it difficult to find examples of these skills in your writing? If so, your writing may be too descriptive (i.e. describing what’s in the literature rather than explaining it, justifying it, or critiquing it).

A general skill in writing a literature review is to seamlessly integrate the literature in your own writing so that your voice comes through, rather than those you've cited. When you find several articles that say the same thing, this adds weight to what you want to say. Note the strength of the writer's voice in this first example where similar information is grouped together.

In this example, the text compares research findings, showing the relationship between authors by using the language of debate.

In this final example, the writer's voice is strong as it is in the first example. However, unlike the close paraphrase of the first text, this gives a summary of the position and research area.

Information prominent: In the first example, the writer's voice stands out, with the author's name put at the end of the sentence. This is an information prominent citation. Generally, try to use these.

• e.g. 1 - It is clear that there should be regular professional development in schools (Adams, 2010).
• e.g 2 - Many researchers have argued strongly for regular professional development in schools (see, for instance, Adams, 2010; Jones, 2013; Whitbread, 2011).

Author prominent: In this second example, the author's voices is standout because they're used as the subject of the information. These are called author prominent citations. Use these when you're constructing debate around contrasting ideas of two or more researchers. Note, however, that in some disciplines, author prominent citations are almost never used and, in others, it's discouraged. If you haven't been given guidelines, look to see how articles and refereed academic journals in your discipline are cited and follow that.

• e.g. 1 - Although Adams (2010) argues strongly for regular professional development workshops in schools, Scott (2012) disagrees, providing many examples of ineffective workshops.

Note: Author prominent citations can be discipline specific! Refer to how articles and refereed academic journals in your discipline are cited, and follow that.

Common knowledge: The last example has no citation. This is considered common discipline knowledge, so it doesn't need a citation. But how do you know what's common knowledge and what's not? Check in your refereed journals. Is the information cited in these? If not, it's probably OK not to cite. However, any time you're in doubt, cite the source. You won't get marks deducted for citing when you don't need to but you might if you don't cite and should have.

In the fifth section of the module on writing a literature review, we discuss the need for you discuss your authoritative voice. Remember in the first module, we said there were two parts to writing a literature review: The text work and the identity work? This section is about the identity work. That is, your identity as a scholar. Kamler and Thomson used this metaphor of a dinner party to illustrate authority in a literature review. You're the host! The dinner is in your home, your guests are coming, and you're familiar with their thinking on a range of issues. You're quite close to some of them, but a few guests are new acquaintances and you want to know more about them. You've planned the menu and cooked the food. You're looking forward to initiating lively discussion around the dinner table; it's your night.

To develop our own stance or position towards the literature means we need to adopt a healthy degree of appreciation and criticality. A way to think about this is adopt a "hands on hips" position, but we don't want to go too far the other way, or seem to be arrogant. It's a balance between making your voice heard, but still showing courtesy even to those with whom you don't agree.

A common mistake is to discuss each literature one at a time, much the same as an annotated bibliography. Making your ideas central is essential. One effective way to do this is to look for areas of contention, so you can discuss who agrees with whom and who doesn't. This allows you to critique effectively and develop your own stance. Remember that everything you write has a storyline, and the literature review is no exception. By identifying the story of the relevant research and how it relates to your topic, you'll be more likely to show your voice. You need to show appreciation and criticality in a professional manner.

Here's another paragraph showing the writer's voice through critiquing the literature. Note the words "attempt" and "attempted to". These words are not neutral; there is an assumption that it wasn't successful Once again, the writer's voice is shown strongly in the second part of the topic sentence, the first sentence.

Sample paragraph - critiquing the literature and maintaining your voice. The writers critique will be highlighted in brackets at beginning and end of each section.

With PhDs seen in virtually all universities around the world and substantial movement of academics between university teaching posts (with the prerequisite of a PhD), [critique] a likely assumption is that there is some sort of universal value and currency. [end-critique] Two studies that tested this assumption by attempting to benchmark doctorates, however, produced differing results. Brown (2011) ultimately found that it is not possible to benchmark doctorates, citing the difficulties in being accepted into PhD study in some universities (for example, the Ivy League universities in the USA) relative to others. She further argues for the impossibility of comparing, for example, a doctorate in electrochemistry with one in education, alluding to the intransigent belief by some that 'hard' science is more difficult (and therefore inherently of more value) than 'soft' disciplines (or vice versa). From a different perspective, Evans (2011) attempted to benchmark the doctorate in order to prevent erosion and argues that "to maintain value, doctorates should consist substantially of research training and practice and be founded on three years of full-time equivalent study" (p. 143). [critique] However, given the complexity of a PhD, to only consider time and the research component is clearly too broad to be of use in identifying or upholding any idea of the value of a doctorate. [end-critique] Interestingly, despite these [critique] failed attempts [end-critique] to understand the significance of the PhD, the numbers of candidates worldwide continue to grow (Anderson, 2011; McAndrew, 2013; Maxwell, 2010), [critique] pointing to some form of elusive, tacit value. [end-critique]

Activity - Read the following paragraph. Is it effective? Why or why not? Record your own comments. Answers will be given at the end. Mortimore (1998) also contributes to the school effectiveness research agenda. He explains that school effectiveness researchers aim to ascertain whether differential resources, processes and organisational differences affect student performance and, if so, how? He is also of the view that school effectiveness researchers seek reliable and appropriate ways to measure school quality. Hopkins (2001) suggests that one of the earliest studies that were done compared the effectiveness of some secondary schools on a range of student outcome measures. Reynolds and Cuttance (1992) also point out that the effective schools research entitled 'Fifteen Thousand Hours' characterised school efficiency factors as varied in the degree of academic emphasis, teacher's action in lessons, the availability of resources, rewards... They emphasise that effective school researchers claim that there are significant differences between schools on a number of different student outcomes after full account has been taken of pupils' previous learning history and family background. Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) also endorse this view by stating that...

Answers:

• There is no topic sentence
• Every sentence has the researcher at the beginning and a fairly mutual verb. For example. Mortimore also contributes. Hopkins suggests. Reynolds and Cuttance also point out. Hargreaves and Hopkins also endorse.
• A summary of ideas without no evaluative stance.

Your choice of reporting verbs can demonstrate analysis, critical reading and thinking. Verbs such as 'states' 'argues' and 'shows' are often overused. There are many more effective reporting verbs you can use. These are provided in the ‘worksheet’ link for you to download.

It really is easy to get bogged down on the literature and, therefore, in danger of our writing being drowned by the literature or having too much "he said, she said" in it. One way many way writers find useful in preventing this is to use a story plot. This is like thinking and writing. It doesn't end up in your literature review, but from it, you can develop a plan which will have your voice prominent. If you don't want to write this down, try recording it and playing it back.

Example - Using a story plot to maintain your voice:

I will first review the literature reporting research into X since it is directly relevant to my work. Here, I will discuss approaches used to investigate, showing that the ways in which X is conceptualised can be elicited in many ways. I will show that they all give us descriptions of X and assume that the different ways in which X is conceptualised result in different practices. Then, I will show that the link between conception and practice has not been proven within this stream of research, although some attempts have been made. I will then talk about attempts to investigate this link (starting with S's study) and analyse the weaknesses of these. Source: University of Queensland